Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tasks of evolutionary bioinformatics are to identify the forms of information that genomes convey, and show how potential conflicts between different forms are reconciled. Apparent redundancies (e.g. diploidy; Chapter 2), and beliefs in the existence of “neutral” mutations (Chapter 7), and of “junk” DNA (Chapter 12), tended to support the view that there is much vacant genome space, and hence “room for all” in the journey of the genes through the generations. Suggestions that there might be conflicts between different forms of information were not taken too seriously. However, when genomic information was thought of in the same way as the other forms of information with which we arc familiar (sec Chapters 2–4), it became evident that apparent redundancies might actually play important roles — errordetection and correction, and much more. The possibility of conflict could no longer be evaded. The essential argument of this book is that many puzzling features of genomes can best be understood in such terms, as will be emphasized in this and subsequent chapters. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.121 | 0.032 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".